Reflection Summary Of Recorded Live Lecture 5
Deonpalmgrove
567Su13Lecture5Groups.pptxManaging Groups & Teams
MGT 567
Dr. Brandon Randolph-Seng
Consider each of the following: Is it a group, or not?
Yes No
_____ _____ 1. Five people waiting at the same corner for a bus.
_____ _____ 2. People attending a worship service.
_____ _____ 3. The Clay Aiken Fan Club.
_____ _____ 4. The students in a seminar class.
2
The bus stop: This is a collection of individuals; they need not interact or influence one another in any way.
Worship: Do the members interact? Are they interdependent? Do they affect one another?
Fan club: If the members never see nor interact with one another, then they are not a group.
Seminar class: Assuming the students are not merely an audience to a lecturer, this is a group.
What Is a Group?
Group
Two or more people
Interact with and influence each other
Perceive one another as “us” vs. “them”
3
Groups in Organizations
Group
2+ people
Working together regularly
To achieve common goals
Effective group achieves
Task performance
Member Satisfaction
Team viability
Synergy
The creation of a whole greater than the sum of its parts
Social loafing
When people work less hard in groups than they would individually
Social facilitation
The tendency for one’s behavior to be influenced by the presence of others in a group
4
Types of Groups in Organizations
Formal groups
Permanent work groups (command groups)
Temporary work groups (task groups)
Cross-functional teams or task forces
Project team
Virtual group
Informal Groups
Friendship groups
Interest groups
5
How are we affected by others?
“Mere social contact begets…a stimulation
of the animal spirit that heightens the
efficiency of each individual workman.”
Karl Marx
Was Marx right?
Mere presence of others energizes us
Norman Triplett (1897)
bicycle racers
children & winding fishing reels
Social facilitation
8
In 1897, Norman Triplett noticed that bicycle racers always turned in better times in competition than alone.
Same result when he asked children to wind fishing reels as quickly as possible.
Presence of Others
Physiological Arousal
Improved Performance
Impaired Performance
Dominant Responses
On well-mastered or simple tasks dominant response is right
On difficult or complex tasks dominant response is wrong
Dominant Responses
(well-mastered task)
Dominant Responses
(unmastered task)
Why do others influence us in this way?
The presence of others makes us more physiologically alert: boost automatic
Cockroaches and other animals
The presence of others makes us more concerned about what others think of us.
The presence of others distracts us.
Conflict between paying attention to others and to the task
10
When performing a simple task, a little evaluation apprehension can improve performance. However, if the task is complex, being evaluated can impair people’s performance.
Mere presence of others can also relaxes us
Social loafing -
Reducing one’s efforts when in a group.
Ringelmann: Tug of war Blindfolded vs. Alone
Latane: Shouting and clapping
Not always consciously aware of change in behavior
Why do others have this effect on us?
11
Free riding – when being in a group creates opportunites that other group members will do the work.
People loaf less when:
Personal efforts are identifiable
The task is meaningful and important
Working with friends vs. strangers
They have a collectivist orientation
Social Loafing
12
Social Facilitation or Social Loafing?
13
Do groups intensify opinions?
The case of the “risky shift”
Group decision riskier than average decision before group discussion
Later research showed that group decision could also be more cautious
Group polarization
14
Attitude Towards Grad School
Unsure
Definite GO
Before Group Discussion
After discussion, the group that initially favored grad school would be even more strongly in favor
Definite NO
(Get A Job!)
Conversely, the group that initially disfavored grad school would be even more opposed
After Group Discussion
Why do groups polarize after interaction?
Persuasive arguments: With even a slight bias in one direction, you’ll hear more favorable arguments on that side.
informational influence (active verbal stance)
Social comparison: When members realize the group is leaning in one direction, they may seek acceptance by moving further in that direction.
normative influence (pluralistic ignorance)
Unanimity
If at least one other (2) dissenter: group loses social power
Few juries hung because of one dissenting juror
1 in 10 Supreme Court decisions over last 50 years had lone dissenter
Most unanimous or 5-4 split
17
18
How do individuals influence a group?
Minority influence (in most societies minority can become the majority)
How can a minority successfully sway a majority?
Same way majority maintains its position
Consistency and persistence in the face of strong and unpleasant opposition (rethink position)
Self-confidence (firm and forceful, opinion)
Defections from the majority (even more powerful than consistency)
19
Norm Development
Normative Social Influence: need for approval and acceptance. Norm= cultural rule for what is the right way to act in a situation (e.g., personal space)
Informational Social Influence: need for information and direction based on the assumption that others have info you don’t have
Occur together (difficult task in front of a group)
Basis of Norm Development
Precedents set over time/primacy – Seating location of each group member around a table
Carryovers from other situations – Professional standards of conduct
Explicit statements from others – Working a certain way because you are told “that’s how we do it around here”
Critical events in group history – After the company suffers a loss due to one person’s divulging company secrets, a norm develops to maintain secrecy
21
Seven Steps to Positive Norms
Act as a positive role model.
Hold meetings to agree on goals.
Select members who can and will perform.
Provide support and training for members.
Reinforce and reward desired behaviors.
Hold meetings for feedback and performance review.
Hold meetings to plan for improvements.
22
Cohesion
The more “we” feeling the group creates the more power it has over its members
Reference Groups: we conform to people we like and admire because we want to be like them
We like people who are similar to us and as a result we become even more similar to them
23
Ways to Increase and Decrease Group Cohesiveness
To Cohesion
Create disagreement
heterogeneity
Restrict within team
Focus within team
Reward individual results
Open up to other teams
Disband the team
To Cohesion
Get agreement
homogeneity
Enhance within team
Focus other teams
Reward team results
Isolate from other teams
Keep team together
TARGETS
Goals
Membership
Interactions
Size
Competition
Rewards
Location
Duration
24
Severe initiation
External threats
Lots of time together
Small groups
History of success
Group
Cohesiveness
Enjoy group membership
Participate in group
activities
Accept group’s goals
Low absenteeism and
turnover
Lose sight of goals
(groupthink)
May work against
organizational interests
Positive
Negative
Causes
Consequences
Group Cohesiveness
25
How cohesiveness and conformity to norms affect group performance.
26
Do groups make good decisions?
Janis (Groupthink)
Sometimes decision-making groups have a tendency to suppress dissent in the interest of group harmony
E.g.,
Pearl Harbor: 2,400
Bay of Pigs: 1,400
Vietnam: 58,000
27
What causes groupthink?
Greater desire among group members to get along and agree with one another than to generate and critically evaluate alternative viewpoints and positions.
Lose benefits of group discussion.
Group characteristics
Directive Leadership
Interpersonal Cohesiveness
Isolation from Outside Influences
Group characteristics
Directive Leadership
Interpersonal Cohesiveness
Isolation from Outside Influences
Groupthink
Desire to Seek Agreement and Group Collegiality
Group characteristics
Directive Leadership
Interpersonal Cohesiveness
Isolation from Outside Influences
Groupthink
Desire to Seek Agreement and Group Collegiality
Psychological State of Group Members
Pressure to Conform to Leader’s Perspective leads to a Self-censorship and Illusion of unanimity
Perceived Need to Protect Leader from Contrary Views: Mindguards
Illusions of Invulnerability and Unquestioned belief in group’s morality
Group characteristics
Directive Leadership
Interpersonal Cohesiveness
Isolation from Outside Influences
Groupthink
Desire to Seek Agreement and Group Collegiality
Psychological State of Group Members
Perceived Pressure to Conform to Leader’s Perspective and Censor Own Views
Perceived Need to Protect Leader from Contrary Views
Illusions of Invulnerability and belief in group’s morality
Defective Discussion Processes
Incomplete Survey of Objectives and Alternatives: Rationalization
Failure to Consider Negative Features of Chosen Alternative: Stereotyped view of opponent
Failure To Design Contingency Plans if Chosen Alternative Fails
Group characteristics
Directive Leadership
Interpersonal Cohesiveness
Isolation from Outside Influences
Groupthink
Desire to Seek Agreement and Group Collegiality
Increased Likelihood of Poor Decision
Psychological State of Group Members
Perceived Pressure to Conform to Leader’s Perspective and Censor Own Views
Perceived Need to Protect Leader from Contrary Views
Illusions of Invulnerability and Of Outsiders as Inferior
Defective Discussion Processes
Incomplete Survey of Objectives and Alternatives
Failure to Consider Negative Features of Chosen Alternative
Failure To Design Contingency Plans if Chosen Alternative Fails
Problems w/ Groupthink theory
The evidence was retrospective so Janis chose supporting cases
Experimental research does show:
Directive leadership
Supporting vs. challenging
Acceptance, approval, social identity
Secure, highly cohesive groups can provide an environment that fosters disagreement
Group norm of critical thinking
How do you preventing Groupthink?
Be impartial
Encourage critical evaluation
Assign roles of critical evaluators
Subdivide the group
Welcome critiques from outsiders
Second-chance meeting
Avoid directive leadership and undue influence
Keep an open climate in the group
When are groups better at problem solving than individuals?
Individual vs. group problem solving demo
Complex problems (like those faced by real firms/organizations everyday)
Eyewitness reports
Brainstorming depending on how it is done
Computer/written vs. face-to-face
Criticize vs. not
Working two-person groups
Group followed by solo
GROUP DECISIONS
Assets
More information
More alternatives
More understanding
More commitment
Liabilities
Time consuming
Pressure to conform
Majority domination
37
